Talk:Tracey Curtis-Taylor

Edits regarding instructor's presence on flights

Two anonymous edits, on 13 and 15 Jan 2016, have added information about Curtis-Taylor's instructor being present on two of her long distance flights. This is not stated in the sources cited, so I have removed the information. If there is mention of the instructor's presence in a reliable source feel free to put the mention back, with the source cited. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's best to request that this page is semi-protected to prevent the repeated addition of unsourced material by IP users. MurielMary (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed further edits by an IP user as they do not follow WP's requirement for a neutral point of view and do not rely on reliable sources. The source given was an internet chatroom. MurielMary (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention in any reliable source of a dispute over whether the flights were solo or not. The idea of a dispute appears to lie with the IP user/users who are editing this article without citing reliable sources. I have removed a description of a dispute again. If there is a reliable source describing a dispute, it needs to be cited with the statement. MurielMary (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Claims regarding Shuttleworth Trust in Bedfordshire and the Imperial War Museum at Duxford have been removed by me. I am happy to restore if both charitable organisations can substantiate the claims. Jaysata (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The instructor and owner of the aircraft can clearly be seen in the front seat of the aircraft on arrival at Sydney airport.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35271182 This wiki entry for Tracy Curtis Taylor has serious issues not least that appears to be a promotion for a solo flight that never happened.The sponsors are listed throughout the text but any reference to it not being a solo flight are quickly removed. Please look at The instructor and owner of the aircraft can clearly be seen in the front seat of the aircraft on arrival at Sydney airport.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35271182 and check out how many people are in the aircraft on arrival at Sydney. The male is the owner of the aircraft and flight instructor Ewald Gritsch. Jaysata (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring - note to IP users

The editing over the past few days is close to (if not already) the definition of edit-warring. It would be helpful if the IP users engaged in a discussion on the matter on this talk page. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added the previous edits to highlight this was not a solo flight. As a pilot of thirty five years experience,much of it long distance and a former news editor of a flying magazine and a former Reuters News Agency reporter I am well qualified. The voyage of Tracey Curtis Taylor has not been solo as highlighted by the BBC report on landing at Sydney. The owner and co pilot can be seen in all the pictures. Jaysata (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Curtis-Taylor had a support crew on the flights was already stated in the article, as it was mentioned in reliable sources. There is no mention of a dispute over this fact in reliable sources, therefore this information cannot be included in this article. As stated above, repeatedly adding unsupported information to a WP article is poor practice. MurielMary (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also bring to Jaysata's attention the policy on editing articles on living people, which states that edits must be conservative and rely on high-quality sources (published sources). Failure to adhere to this policy can lead to a user being blocked from editing. It's available here to read: [2]. MurielMary (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC is a high quality source and two people can clearly be seen in the aircraft on landing while she implied it was a solo flight. Jaysata (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And as mentioned above, the fact that Curtis-Taylor had a support crew is already mentioned in the article. Accusations of someone "implying" a particular state are likely to contravene the policy on editing bios of living people, as these accusations cannot be substantiated by reliable sources. MurielMary (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also bring your attention to the WP policy on personal attacks [3] - an accusation about personal behaviour which lacks evidence is considered a personal attack and isn't permitted here. MurielMary (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem as UK press now doing follow up which should clarify it was a dual flight. Jaysata (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Guardian articles

Moved from article to Talk page

Articles in The Guardian on 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2016 stated that the UK to Australia flight was "solo", however this description was erroneous as solo flight time is defined as "flight time when the pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft".

Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Video and television footage of the flight clearly shows a second person in the aircraft. Although various press articles fanfared the trip as solo this seems to apply only to Amy Johnson's flight between the same cities, which inspired Tracey C-T. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of claims

There are several ambiguous claims on this page.

Curtis Taylor claims to have been part of a crew flying a Russian registered Antonov AN2 from Kiev to Cape Town. However only Russian pilot licence holders can legally fly the AN2 and Curtis Taylor has never claimed to hold an extremely hard to get Russian licence.

The only reference to her Kiev to Cape Town trip comes from an Inmarsat press release. This company sponsors her.

Please substantiate her crewing of the AN2 or remove. Jaysata (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources to verify that she was aboard the plane, but indeed no evidence of her taking the controls. Rephrased accordingly. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank your for removing suggestions she was crew on board the AN2. Being on board an aircraft has no great merit. The AN2 is a very common biplane and thousands of westerners have flown on board them. It is not worthy of a Wiki entry for a pilot to claim to have been on board any aircraft if not flight crew. Jaysata (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A three month flight from the Ukraine to South Africa to deliver a biplane for charity use does not seem run-of-the-mill in this day and age. To my knowledge TC-T takes no credit for the journey but used it to gather experience for her own flight back to Europe. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The normal time frame for that flight even in a slow moving AN2 is a couple of weeks.In three months you could do it on a moped. There Jaysata (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be a trend on this thread to elevate the flights of this pilot to a point where they are above routine. Curtis Taylor makes many claims to suggest very routine general aviation flights are major adventures. Jaysata (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of statements and references

As a pilot, I came across this controversy a week or so ago. I was explaining the background to a colleague and in the course of the discussion I said how difficult it was to see what was said when on websites. He later sent me a page from the 'bird in a biplane' website taken from another website called 'way back when'. This page, as evidenced in the link I supplied, clearly shows that in February 2015, after the Africa flight had taken place, a statement is made that the flight was carried out solo. Furthermore, the author now states on her current page that the flights were not made solo but 'sole'. To pilots, the word 'solo' in a flying context is exactly that. The pilot is on his or her own in the aircraft. There is no other possible scenario. I believe these are pertinent facts to the controversy and have given what must surely be unimpeachable sources - two versions of the authors website. I therefore request that my edit is restored or similar wording relating to this specific issue is provided. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.158.75 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Jayasta kindly refrain from removing statements and references which you consider to be dubious. Such statements can usually be rephrased if agreed to be necessary. I am referring to the statements on Curtis-Taylor's career such as the Flying Legends event which you have removed - if you feel the precise wording is inaccurate, this could be re-worded as "she worked at" or "she was involved with" etc without removing the mention completely. MurielMary (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you did not remove information such as the incident where she collided with a parked helicopter at Goodwood in Sussex.This accident was covered by all the UK press and tv and was the subject of a government report which I cited.All details of her accident including her low number of hours flown in the previous three months. It appears you are trying to disguise facts in favour of Curtis Taylors media reputation. Jaysata (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove that information, another editor did. I would remind you again of WP's policy on personal attacks - making accusations against editors without evidence is not welcome. [4] MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reposted the accident at Goodwood.Apologies as I thought you removed it.There is certainly a lot more accuracy in the article now as some clarity has been placed on the suggestion by the press that both flights were solo. There was no mention of Ewald Gritsch in the grand arrival at Sydney yet he can be plainly seen. Jaysata (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the previous section on the accident as it does not seem to be notable. Lewis Hamilton recently crashed into a parked car provoking a media frenzy, but that doesn't make it notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Sure accidents need investigation for safety and insurance purposes, but is this one so important? If she had received a serious penalty, reprimand or sanctions then it might be notable. Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Guffydrawers, this accident is minor and not notable enough to be included in the article. There were no casualties and no penalty. I suggest it be removed (again). MurielMary (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the section on the accident to here (see below). Two editors feel it is non-notable and should not be included in this article. Any further discussion can happen here on this page rather than edit-warring (frequent repetitive editing and reverting of edits) on the article page.MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Accident at Goodwood, 2015 On 17 August 2015 Curtis Taylor collided with a parked Robinson R44 helicopter (G-LHXL) whilst taxi-ing at Goodwood Aerodrome, Chichester, West Sussex. There were no casualties. The Boeing Stearman, tail number N 56200 Spirit of Artemis and owned by 3G Classic Aviation suffered a shock loaded engine and cosmetic damage but the cockpit of the helicopter was destroyed.[1] The accident occurred the day after a flypast at the Herne Bay airshow where the picture above was taken.

There appears to be an effort here to remove fact from reality. Curtis Taylor was involved in an accident that required the UK government to publicly issue a Air Accident Investigation Branch report thatshecollided with and destroyed a Robinson44 helicopter. Murielmary appears to want to remove issues that are in the public domain. Jaysata (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no denying that she had an accident and that an AAIB report was issued, as is entirely normal. Please explain how the accident is notable and suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you Guffydrawers (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no explanation forthcoming in response to the request above, I propose that the mention of the accident is removed from the article. MurielMary (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the point of Curtis Taylor is that she is supposed to be a great aviator the fact that she has had an aviation accident is relevant and should be in the article. One of the defining features on an aviator is how many crashes he/she has had. Bill Hall (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is some censorship going on here. Any adverse information on CT (Curtis Taylor) is removed from the article. There is no doubt that there is controversy about CT's aviation achievements as mentioned by Jaysata in his various edits. In my opinion this should not be whitewashed out of history. Bill Hall (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bilko2: Do you have some reliable sources for this controversy? Previous edits regarding a controversy were referenced to an internet chat room discussion, which is not a reliable source. MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is unreliable about that internet "chat room" it is a forum run by one the leading general aviation magazines in the country. The people commenting there are some of the leading GA pilots anywhere, some of whom have flown with Curtis Taylor. Certainly opinions worth mentioning. Bill Hall (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Chat in a chat room doesn't meet the requirements of a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The encyclopedia isn't based on people's opinions. Anything reported in the mainstream media, either online or in print? MurielMary (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the Wikipedia rules. Also I cannot find any reference to the controversy in mainstream media which is interesting in itself. Bill Hall (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The pictures on arrival at Sydney clearly show another male in the front seat who is clearly identified as Ewald Gritsch through a simple search on google images and typing in his name.

Curtis Taylor makes nor reference to him anywhere in her media interviews but he is the man who restored the aircraft she flew from the UK to Sydney. Jaysata (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to twitter from Tracy Curtis Taylor https://mobile.twitter.com/biplanebird/status/726520764497727489/photo/1 Jaysata (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Press reporting and ambiguity

There appear to be issues regarding much of the press reporting of both the Cape Town to UK and UK to Sydney flights.

The press reports and title Bird in a Biplane suggest a female solo flight on both occasions. However simple examinantion of all sources online show two people on board. Curtis Taylor has tried to dismiss these questions via third parties as taking others on board to share the experience or for techninal reasons.The latter can of course include a second pilot. The wiki edits have also included efforts to suppress her accident at Goodwood. Disingenuous is a word that springs to mind. Jaysata (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia policy on Original Research prohibits "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed references to sponsors names and social flights.Wiki is not a commercial promotional tool. No direct confirmation of those claimed to have flown in the aircraft.Hearsay. Jaysata (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki has also removed reference to the major accident at Goodwood that Curtis Taylor colided with and destroyed a helicopter. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201498/Woman-pilot-bidding-emulate-Amy-Johnson-hits-parked-helicopter.html

The helicopter was worth in excess of £100'000 UK pounds. Jaysata (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued interest in this article Jayasta. However your edits have removed cited statements, footnotes, an image and the infobox, leaving statements without citations and a general lack of depth to the article. Also the material about the stops is not a social calendar. It demonstrates the additional use of the global flight as a way to bring an inspirational woman speaker to audiences of girls and women in diverse locations. Thus I have reverted the article to its previous form. MurielMary (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You constant editing of this topic do nothing for the truth. While the wiki entry for her states ....Similarly to the Cape Town to Goodwood flight, these supporters were invited to join her in the cockpit to enjoy the experience.[6

Her latest twitter feed show a speech she gave in the USA a few days ago with a graphic behind her claiming she was alone in the aircraft for the entire trip!

"Similarly to the Cape Town to Goodwood flight, these supporters were invited to join her in the cockpit to enjoy the experience.[6"

I intend to reinstate the section regarding solo and not solo claims.

There is clearly an element of duplicity involved in your constant tampering with the truth on this topic. Jaysata (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jaysata, please adhere to Wikipedia standards on original research, civility to other editors and neutrality. You may find the guidance on dispute resolution useful. Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to intrude into this interesting conversation, if you guys don't mind. I have run into reliable sources that touch upon the controversy of "solo" flights, I suggest we create a section called controversy about solo flight claims and add relevant information with reliable sources that purports to doubt the claims of solo flights.[5],[6] Kanatonian (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The refs you provide state that she was accompanied by a support plane and that Ewald Gritsch was in the plane when it crashed in Arizona. I've therefore reverted edits that claim he was in the plane on other flights (Cape Town to Goodwood, Farnborough to Sydney). Regards, Guffydrawers (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Can I make the following point. The National Post newspaper report ( http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/after-arizona-desert-crash-critics-of-british-pilot-say-they-want-the-truth-behind-famous-flights ) quotes Sam Rutherford who organised the logistics for the South Africa trip.

"According to Rutherford, when the flight across Africa was being planned, Curtis-Taylor told him that it would be a solo trip. “The film crew, sponsors, the press — everyone — thought she would be doing it solo,” he said in an interview. “At no stage did anyone say there would be anyone else in the aircraft.”

Rutherford, who runs a company that helps photographers and film crews plan trips around the world was pleased with the outcome of the intercontinental trip, but became concerned after he saw Curtis-Taylor telling crowds of people that she flies solo. He was also concerned about how a BBC documentary, The Aviatrix, depicted the journey.

“Ten thousand miles, with no modern technology — just a joystick and pedals,” the narrator claims in the film.

This too is a problem to Rutherford, who says that the plane was equipped with the latest navigation computers and GPS"

There appears to be a desire to remove any reference on this wiki entry to the questions raised over what part Ewald Gritsch played in the front seat.

Kanatonian also raises these issues above. Jaysata (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The desire is merely to stick to information provided by the source(s) and not to add personal analysis or inferences. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note the biographies of living persons policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". Please ensure you support statements with references to reliable sources. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Guffydrawers.

I notice there is no reference to her accident that destroyed the Spirit of Artemis. In newspaper reports she described Ewald Gritsch, the owner and commercial pilot in the front seat, as a passenger.

Miss Curtis-Taylor was travelling with Ewald Gritsch, her Austrian passenger for that leg of the journey, when the plane came down. Both managed to clamber out of the aircraft before waiting 20 minutes for emergency services to arrive.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3592412/Round-world-flier-calls-Bird-biplane-survives-plane-crashes-Arizona.html#ixzz4DRLmaG23

Mr Gritsch admits he was in the forward cockpit for ‘the majority’ of the flights from Cape Town to Goodwood and Farnborough to Sydney. He said: ‘The situation was that it was not a solo flight.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670873/Amy-Johnson-ain-t-Solo-flying-poster-girl-brought-earth-claims-pilot-flew-just-four-36-round-world-legs-own.html#ixzz4DRMHhKiF Jaysata (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably don't need to be in the lead but somewhere else?

On 2nd July 2016, UK newspaper, The Daily Mail, printed an article calling her alleged 'solo' flying achievements into question. Taylor responded by stating her flights were made when she was the 'sole' pilot.[1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3670873/Amy-Johnson-ain-t-Solo-flying-poster-girl-brought-earth-claims-pilot-flew-just-four-36-round-world-legs-own.html

• Hi Guffydrawers are you able to advise on how this page could be protected from vandalism? It's been attacked several times over the past 24 hours. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Cancel that, taken care of! MurielMary (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed

AviationHistory you need to add citations to the edits you have made on this page. Information that doesn't appear in reliable sources can't be added to wikipedia. Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes this article is poorly supported with some sources that do not verify its content, fall below the required standard, or are simply broken links. Starting at the section "Early Life"; it is claimed Curtis-Taylor "earned her private and commercial licences" in Auckland. However, the sources #3 and #4 are both Q&A session with Curtis-Taylor herself - not an independent source. Also, #3 does not include any reference to obtaining a commercial licence in New Zealand, #4 does and yet #6, if anything, contradicts the claim thus: "...[she] learned to fly in New Zealand. Later Tracey returned to the UK and became a commercial pilot". Indeed at this time the accessible FAA database shows that she has a private licence only and because 'her' Boeing Stearman is FAA registered she certainly cannot operate that commercially. So the sources certainly do not verify that she has ever worked as a commercial pilot - merely that she claims to have. This article needs revisions to the text which is not supported by the references, so consider this a heads up for edits in due course. Beck daross (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Pilot magazine is regarded as a WP:RS. The fact that they published Q&As from Curtis-Taylor herself hardly means that the material cannot be trusted. Quite the reverse, in fact. If you have any alternative reports, again from reliable sources, which cast doubt on any cliams made by that source, feel free to add them. If you see broken links it's a good idea to fix them or mark them as "deadlinks", etc.

Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2016

(UTC)

Pilot magazine may well be an RS, however the article was merely a Q&A. Therefore the de facto source was Curtis-Taylor herself. This is an encyclopedia so what is required is verification of the fact that she is a commercial pilot, as opposed to verification that she claims to be one. This article states that her occupation is commercial pilot and that she "returned to the UK and became a commercial pilot". Martinevans - can you cite any commercial flight operation that she undertook - if so please do, if not she will have to be downgraded to "private pilot" as that is the only licence and activity that can be verified. BTW I am not asking you to fix any broken links - I am giving notice that I will in due course edit the text that is not supported by good sources including broken links - so feel free to update them in the meantime. Assuming this article is not deleted Beck daross (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And further to that I have just noticed the accident investigation into her Goodwood crash [AAIB Bulletin: 12/2015 N56200 EW/G2015/08/10] confirms that her licence is "Private Pilot's Licence". This official clarification of her licence status definitively overrides any quotes from her various interviews, the article text that "[she] returned to the UK and became a commercial pilot", and the "Occupation: Pilot" that would be illegal on a private licence. Revision to follow. Beck daross (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Does the PPL status aply only to that accident investigation report? i.e. she was not flying that flight in the role of a commercial pilot? I'm really not sure what to do about the Pilot source - thousands of other BLP articles use similar subject interview material at face value. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

A commercial licence confers 'PPL privileges' however, the licence is still a commercial licence. Therefore if you are a CPL flying privately you are still doing it on your CPL, and that is the licence that would be listed as "Commander's Licence". I have also noted from her FAA records that her FAA private is based on her GBR private licence, which is further definitive evidence that she is not the holder of a commercial licence that would justify her occupation as pilot (at least not within the EASA area where she is based, and not anywhere when flying the FAA registered Spirit of Artemis). Whilst Pilot magazine is reliable in that if they attributed a quote to Curtis-Taylor we can be pretty sure she did actually say it, that is not the same as her answer being a correct representation of the facts. However, in that particular reference she only mentions 'working in that capacity [at some point when she was in NZ]'. As for the other references, whilst it might normally be reasonable to take interviews in good faith, in this case, official records indicate that she holds neither an EASA, nor FAA commercial, and if she ever did hold an NZ commercial (possible but unverified) she would have had to convert it into an EASA CPL in order to be a commercial pilot when she came back here. Therefore her occupation - at least since returning from NZ - cannot be pilot. Beck daross (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you want to share your sources here. I'm not sure what the position is regarding them being primary sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My sources are the AAIB report I cited above, and the publicly searchable FAA Airman database. I propose the references to Curtis-Taylor being a commercial pilot be replaced with "private pilot", or removed, and her occupation revised to either 'public speaker' or 'gemmologist'. Under the Code of Federal Regulations it would be illegal for her to earn revenue from the flights in Spirit of Artemis, so her occupation cannot be pilot, or aviatrix, even though she is both those things in the amateur context. Beck daross (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The FAA database that Beck daross refers to is only authoritative for FAA licenses (i.e. USA), Curtis-Taylor may we still hold a Commercial license from other states. Incidentally the 'other pilot' that has been referred to on this page is also listed as private pilot in the FAA database. I don't believe the AAIB is authoritative in this context either, as Curtis-Taylor was only licensed to fly this aircraft using her FAA license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.42.251 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The AAIB is authoritative on any accident or incident involving aircraft which occurs in the United Kingdom irrespective of the licence held by the pilot.Veritasaviator (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Veritasaviator is absolutely correct. "I don't believe the AAIB is authoritive" as 88.105.42.251 posits is not credible. The power the AAIB have to investigate the bona fides of the accident aircrew exceeds that of even the CAA/FAA. To consider an AAIB statement on the licence held - and BTW Curtis-Taylor had 28 days to check it was correct - 'not authoritive' is a position so lacking in merit that I can give it zero weight in considering how to edit the information on Curtis-Taylor's occupation and licence stauts. Beck daross (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the AAIB does not have the power to compel other states to release information about private citizens, the point being that just because the AAIB found the pilot was correctly licensed using her FAA certificate does NOT mean she holds other valid licenses issued by other states. This is hardly a major accident where you might say 'no stone is left unturned'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.42.251 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevent that you disagreee. It is a matter of fact that she crashed an FAA aircraft in the UK and under the multi-lateral agreement (aka ICAO) the AAIB are lead investigator and - quote - "will obtain records relating to the pilot’s training and experience". That procedure is standard for general aviation accidents; it does not apply only to accidents that might subjectively be in your words 'hardly major'. Of course the AAIB are not going to go on a trawl of random countries requesting information about the pilot but that is irrelevant because to work in the EASA area she needs either an EASA commercial or a commercial licence issued by the state of registration of the aircraft she is flying (with caveats regarding where the aircraft is permanently based). Beck daross (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is never proof of anything. She may well only have a private license, but by your own admission the AAIB report is not exhaustive. I do however agree with MilborneOne that pilot is a better description as this is supported by several sources. As a further example of what I mean, the NTSB report of the later accident for example lists the other occupant as simply an occupant.194.73.113.130 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The point about her possibly having a commercial licence from other states is moot (she may have had an NZ CPL but that remains unverified). As she holds neither an EASA commercial nor an FAA commercial she cannot be earning a living as a pilot anywhere within the EASA area nor can she be earning revenue from any of her flights in Spirit of Artemis - at least not legally. Quite apart from her licence status we have not a single reliable source to verify that she has worked as a commercial pilot since returning to the UK, and not a single member of the UK pilot community who has corroborated this claim. We do not even have a specific claim from Curtis-Taylor herself of any commercial operation that we could fact check, just vague statements in various PR interviews suggesting that her profession is 'pilot'. Beck daross (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

All we need to do is remove the world "commercial" from the lead until evidence appears, she doesnt need to have a CPL to be a "pilot". MilborneOne (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

But she does most definitely need a CPL for her occupation to be "pilot". Therefore I propose to change her occupation to public speaker/gemmologist (she claims both) Beck daross (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There are number of ways that a pilot might operate in what would be described as an 'occupation' under FAA part 91194.73.113.130 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

May I contribute please? This is a copy of my response to an editor MSGJ, but it is relevant here, as the censorship of facts is annoying, but the constant refusal to accept that nobody can LEGALLY make a CAREER out of being a PILOT with appropriate licences and other ratings, which Tracy Curtis Taylor clearly doesn't have, supported only by a few fleeting references of attending a few airshows, is even more bizarre. Sorry about my lack of knowledge on how to edit to present this properly, which must be equally annoying - but nowhere near so serious - to you Wiki experts whom I am referring to. My "talk" to MSGJ, for what it is worth, is below. :

Thank you for your comment "To avoid a further block, please avoid edit warring and use the article's talk page to discuss any controversial actions". With respect, I have never intended to "war", neither are my edits controversial. I am no Wiki expert - I am a total novice - however I am a commercial airline pilot, flying instructor and CAA appointed examiner with over 30 years aviation experience, so I am an expert in my field. I have tried to tone down the wild and completely untrue claims made on behalf of the subject, as the CAA would prosecute her for some of the actions that have been claimed on her behalf as a career. She cannot possibly have earned a living from display flying without a CAA granted Display Authorisation. Not only are the claims totally untrue, they mislead any Wiki readers and they risk causing the subject being investigated and prosecuted. But if the wisdom of the few Wiki experts is apparently greater than mine, and they wish to perpetuate false information, let them. I can't waste any more of my time on trying to educate the ignorant. None of my edits have been controversial to anyone remotely knowledgeable about aviation and particularly Air Law as contained in the Air Navigation Order. If they appear controversial to Wiki "professionals" who don't have any such specialist knowledge, that is beyond my control, unfortunately.

There are number of ways money can change hands, that are legitimate Part 91 operations, many in house US corporate flight departments operate as such, though having money changing hands is not a requirement for an occupation.

194.73.113.130 (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As for John's ban, and your threat to do similar, just because you dislike the truth being told, then please go ahead, do so. At least I have publicly stated my case. Others can judge who is wishing to use Wiki for its correct purpose of informing and educating readers of facts and the truth, and who is the censor of same. I say again, with respect, we all have areas of expertise and knowledge, and we all have areas of ignorance. I freely admit I am no expert on Wiki and its apparently odd editing and voting system that votes out the truth, yet votes in harmful untruths which could lead to prosecution of one of its subjects, however I assure you I am an aviation expert, I have granted many pilots their licences, and I have similarly helped the CAA to remove some on occasion. With my kind regards.86.165.205.190 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)86.165.205.190 (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable Accidents

I removed the two references to accidents in the article as neither is particular notable or would be worth a mention here. We dont usual mention non-notable accidents in biographies. Neither accident was fatal nor did it damage anything of note but my removal was reverted on he ground that the aircraft were worth a lot of money - not a normal consideration in wikipedia. Suggest that these be removed again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that they are non-notable and should be removed. In fact, higher up on this page there is a previous discussion about this same point, in which another editor (Guffydrawers) states that the accidents are non-notable and should be removed. I will remove them based on our three "votes" to remove. MurielMary (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the accidents are "non-notable". It is a subjective term so we should default to the aviation criteria. An accident is by definition a notable event that requires investigation. Non-notable would be an aviation "incident". These were both accidents. Goodwood resulted in total loss of the helo she hit and Winslow was cat 4 on a scale where cat 5 is total loss. The Winslow accident ended Curtis-Taylor's round the world flight, so it is both significant and relevant to the content of this article Beck daross (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User: Beck daross. MilborneOne, As a pilot, taxying into another aircraft is a very notable incident as is crashing on take-off with a passenger onboard. To have this happen to someone with such extended media coverage and not mention it is, quite frankly, bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.133.8.126 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with User: Beck daross. Should definately be present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman3110 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability is determined by wikipedia consensus not by "aviation criteria", neither accident was fatal, damaged something notable or changed regulations, so in wikipedia terms they are not notable, in the second accident the aircraft was repaired. It would be unusual to mention a non-fatal accident in an aviators articles I dont see an exception here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MilbourneOne, apart from the helicopter, in the first accident, she damaged the propellor of her aircraft and in the second, she damaged her aircraft so badly it had to be rebuilt. The aircraft was The Spirit of Artemis...the one that is in the picture at the top of the page and the one used to fly the journeys. So I would respectfully suggest that that aircraft is 'notable'.178.255.42.251 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the notability of these accidents centres on the rarity of the aircraft model, not on any possible contention that Curtis-Taylor is a hopelessly over-rated aviatrix and shameless liar. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP has a policy of "no personal attacks" particularly regarding living people. You need to refrain from making allegations such as the above, Martinevans123. WP is not the place to run a campaign maligning someone. It is a tertiary source of information, which can only report information which has already appeared in independent, reliable secondary sources. MurielMary (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And where is this alleged "personal attack" exactly? The Boeing-Stearman is a fine vintage aircraft, even if it does have two seats. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MilborneOne, concensus has a place but a small concensus of wiki editors cannot override the fact that wider society considers these accidents notable as evidenced by both the press coverage and the two official accident investigation reports. I remind you that MurielMary claims in the AfD debate that media coverage alone (and not the nature of her flights) makes Curtis-Taylor worth an article. It is a completely inconsistent editorial policy to label accidents which have been widely reported in the media as "non-notable" whilst simultaneously citing ongoing media coverage as the justification for this article not being deleted! In anycase I do not see a consensus here that the accidents are "non-notable". As far as I can tell it is evenly split amongst those who have contributed to this section so far. As both these accidents are established facts in the public domain and subject to official reports based on the testimony of Curtis-Taylor herself, their inclusion is certainly not contentious. I see no justification for continually revising them out of this article, which is hardly pressed for space. Beck daross (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, while it is frustrating to see the removal of certain items it is courteous to let the other editor have reply before undoing her edit.178.255.42.251 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Her? Just one? Did I undo anything? We don't know your own name yet too, do we? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove Definitely non notable and including them in a separate section just draws WP:UNDUE weight to them. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The aviation industry worldwide does not agree that a pilot's accident history is not materiel to their resume. Many airlines will not hire a pilot with accident history, whether fault was found with them or not. In others it is not a big deal but it is a question that will nonetheless usually be asked at job interviews. TCT chooses to style herself as a Pilot. She is qualified as a Professional Pilot, she holds the licence. She therefore shouders the responsibilities. It is thus very much materiel to her resume and Wiki page that any accidents are accurately and correctly reported, and the removal of them tells all aviators the world over that material facts are deliberately being obscured in order, apparently, to keep them from the knowledge of non aviators who read the page and know no better. As a Professional licence holder you do not have the right to hide behind obfuscation of this nature. Accidents are exhaustively investigated and published by official Governmental bodies and reported without blame or censure of any kind. No opprobrium whatsoever is attached except that which may occur in the mind of the reader on reading and analysing the bare facts presented in the report. It surely cannot be argued that when major Governmental safety bodies are involved in exhaustive investigations this is not material to the article in question.. Their citations are among the most impeccable it is possible to have. The accident history should be reinstated,. Bumbulum (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that "major Governmental safety bodies", such as UK's HSE for example, investigate many thousands of accidents and incidents every year that will never appear, quite justifiably, in Wikipedia articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance trivia like the HSE has to do with it. We're talking a different league here. It is the Air Accident Investigations Board and the FAA's equivalent that we are talking about and that  has everything to do with this case. Aviation universally regards accidents as a BIG DEAL and a great deal of notice is applied to them that we may learn to make your travel safer.  Aircraft accident reports  are routinely included in any article to which they are relevant or of interest. A detailed  article about an individual aviator's career surely falls into that category more squarely than most, and the  unprecedentedly fast  timescale  of the Stearman's restoration after the Arizona accident is surely a success story so dramatic and unexpected that it is of  the greatest interest to anyone reading her story? Why on earth has such a dramatic and spectacular event been left out? Bumbulum (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you may need to find some kind of chatroom/ blogsite to vent your obvious anti-Curtis-Taylor anger any further. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am striving for truth and accuracy in a Wiki article, what has a chat room to do with this? The rest of your post is as offensive as it is irrational. I begin to see the problem here. Please keep your responses to the matter in hand, not personal insults.Bumbulum (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "trivia like the HSE"? I can think of quite a few people who would find that phrase extremely offensive. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to block IP editors due to repetitive disruption and vandalism

Guffydrawers did you arrange the protection of this page previously, I can't remember? MurielMary (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent are you available to look at this request for page protection? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

John are you available to look at this page for continuous removal of public cites and references.?178.255.43.148 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevant WP Policy for you to review, 178.255.43.148, is "No original research" NOR. Editors cannot draw their own conclusions from published sources. When you write "X contradicts Y" you are making an inference. Unless a reliable source states "X contradicts Y" then it cannot be written into a WP article. I have not removed public cites, I have removed inferences and personal conclusions. Note that this same discussion has been had with Jaysata some months ago higher up this page. MurielMary (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary you have removed a photograph of Curtis Taylor standing in front of her presentation slide which states she flew alone. You have also removed the link to the Daily Telegraph of Oct 1 2015 where she is quoted as saying she '..flew to the other side of the world on my own'. These are both fundamental pieces of documentation that support the LAA withdrawal.5.133.8.126 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The photograph had no information with it i.e. no source, date, location, caption, identifying details etc. Not a reliable source. The DT link was removed because the whole sentence was removed as unnecessary and repetitive. The current version of the paragraph says all that is needed on the topic. MurielMary (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary The photograph has a source on it (The National Post of Canada) which is indeed a very reliable link. The image speaks for itself. It has shows Curtis-Taylor giving a presentation in Canada with a slide stating she was alone in the cockpit. The Daily Telegraph link has a verified quote from Curtis-Taylor in which she specifically states she was flying on her own. That is not repeated anywhere else. Both items are direct contradictions to the link to her statement on the birdinabiplane website.178.255.42.251 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This WP article is not the place to put Curtis-Taylor on trial, to provide evidence for or against any particular position, or to infer/suggest original conclusions such as "this contradicts that". See the numerous posts above on this page regarding WP policies on neutrality and "no original research". WP is not an appropriate place to argue one's personal viewpoint. MurielMary (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please view this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fujEzI94zAc&feature=youtu.be&t=9m40s5.133.8.123 (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is, however, supposed to inform those who wish to know about TCT and her career. As a major part of her recent career has been the solo/not solo controversy and many readers will ne looking at the page for clarification of this matter it is surely essential that the facts be fully and correctly presented. The repeated removal of fully accredited photos or links that offer clear evidence in the matter is surely not in the interests of either the truth or of those readers who seek it. It is very clear that the only interest served by this practice is to suppress any meaningful description of historically provable events. Is that really the Wiki way?Bumbulum (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not "very clear" at all. What do you mean by "fully accredited photos or links"? Does that include primary source YouTube videos for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So a photo of TCT standing in front of a presentation slide announcing she flew alone and a quote from the Daily Telegraph stating the same is "not very clear"? Not accredited? I'm lost for words. How can that be? Are you saying they're photoshopped? Or the Telegraph is lying? Both seem to me to amply fulfil Wiki's accreditation criteria but I'm new to the strange world of Wiki editing.Bumbulum (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

'Occupation'

I revised her occupation to gemmologist/public speaker and it has again reverted to pilot. This should not be a matter of debate because both the FAA and GBR licence held by Curtis-Taylor are on the FAA database, and it is not a licence that allows her to earn revenue from her flights. Her occupation also includes 'adventurer', which is debatable in itself, but the key point is that the Africa and Oz trips, undertaken in an FAA registered aircraft, with a private certifcate, cannot legally earn Curtis-Taylor any revenue. It is clear that some of the editors on this article are ignorant of the regulations as they pertain to licence privileges. The FAA have issued an Advisory Circular to clarify things. I will try and find the AC for other editors to reference. But it boils down to this: whatever the occupation of a private pilot is, it CANNOT be 'pilot'. Most pilots are fully aware of this simple and uncontroversial fact. I explained at some length the reasons for my proposed revision to her 'Occupation' before I made it. Whether or not Curtis-Taylor is using these flights as her de facto source of income, one thing is crystal clear - it is not legal to do so. Therefore her occupation cannot leaglly be 'pilot' nor, based on these flights, can it legally be 'adventurer'. Beck daross (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Pilot is fine. That's why she's notable. She's the Director of "Bird-in-a-Biplane", a registered company, e.g. [7]Before you add "gemmologist" (if you feel you must) could you provide some kind of source in the article to support that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Earning direct revenue or any revenue is too narrow a definition for occupation, take the following examples student, scholar, housewife, this may be of assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.113.130 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a commercial pilot - it's my occupation and I get paid for it. However, along with thousands of other commercial pilots around the world, I fly a light aircraft (in fact a number of them) as well. I fly for touring but I also fly a sailplane-tug for a club. Those activities are my pastime and I don't get paid for them like many other light aircraft pilots. Curtis-Taylor can be called a pilot, she can even be called an expedition pilot but without some proof of her using a commercial pilot's licence to fly and being compensated for doing so, it cannot be her occupation. Veritasaviator (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

With respect again: Similarly, I am a commercial pilot, and the subject being called a pilot as an occupation is completely wrong, and disrespectful to those of us who hold Airline Transport Pilot Licences, and appropriate ratings to fly each complex type that we do, eg Boeing 747. For Martinevans123 to claim that "Pilot is fine. That's why she's notable" is ridiculous justification for allowing her to be listed as a pilot for her occupation. She is equally notable - arguably more notable - for being a liar, as proved by her eventual back-tracking on her solo claims in The Independent newspaper today. So why don't we list her occupation as "Liar"? It is much more true than pilot, and she has proved that she can earn a living from carrying out that occupation, which she is legally allowed to do, whereas she is not allowed to earn a living from being a pilot with a mere PPL.86.165.205.190 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be some editors who think they know better what a private pilot is allowed to do than does the licencing authority itself! However, seeing as the facts are established about her licence status and what she can do with it I propose to revise her occupation to gemmologist/public speaker. Would you, as a fellow professionals, think that is a reasonable revision Veritasaviator and 86.165.205.190? Beck daross (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly concur with both of you that her occupation should not be listed as pilot. Whether her occupation should be listed as waitress (because apparently she was happy to be referred to as a former waitress - maybe for effect - to show how far she has come, in the broadsheet articles which only her own media team can have authorised) or not is for someone else to judge. When someone appears to have such a thin career history, it is difficult to know what should be there, but 'pilot' is completely wrong. As for listing a few sporadic appearances at airshows where she mostly didn't display under career, this is equally untrue for exactly the same reason. Removing this list from 'Career' does the subject a favour, as all evidence suggests that others have wrongly listed these little bits of flying as constituting her career - claims I doubt she would wish to be listed there herself, as they draw attention to possible breach of regulations and privileges of her non-commercial licence, inviting investigation with a view to prosecution.86.165.205.190 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. You're suggesting Curtis-Taylor gets paid, earns her living in fact, by being a liar?? One can be a pilot, and be paid for flying, without carrying any passengers? The only advice at Template:Infobox person is "Occupation(s) as given in the lead."Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123, we are simply discussing facts. Whether or not she had passengers is irrelevant - private pilots are allowed to carry passengers. The criteria that determines if the flight is commercial is if it is revenue earning. It doesn't matter if she was shooting a film or counting zebras; if she used a plane and recieved more than the operating cost of the aircraft (less her own pro rata share of those costs) then it is revenue earning and illegal without the requisite commercial licence. Beck daross (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Beck daross you are talking out of your hat, in your example, a private pilot could legally be a paid employee or receive compensation while flying, under FAA part 91. Their main job might be filming or counting zebras as you suggested or perhaps they could be an engineer or adventurer, you could certainly carry passengers and or freight. Those passengers or freight could not however be providing compensation for the flight. FAA 61.113b covers it https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.113 194.73.113.130 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

194.73.113.130, you need to respect the WP rules on civility and play the man not the ball. You should also read the points you are responding to carefully to avoid superfluous arguments such as "you could certainly carry passengers" when I said in the very post you are responding to "private pilots are allowed to carry passengers"! On the CFRs you are wrong. You need to have another look at your link, or even better go to the CFRs themselves. A private pilot cannot be in command of a revenue earning flight; "no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.". You are probably reading cfr 61.113b "A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:...", without noticing that the flight can only be "incidental" to the business. What this means is that a private pilot who happens to be an employee may eg fly his boss to a meeting, or, a business man may take a customer along on a flight. What you cannot do is organise a flying 'expedition', invite a film crew along and earn revenue from the flight either from the film or by then going on the public speaking circuit because the flight you made would not be incidental to your business, particulalry when you had set up a company called Bird-in-a-Biplane! One may make such a flight and have it filmed, and go on a public speaking tour and do any of those things but without a commercial certificate one cannot be paid for any of that because the flight is not "incidental" to that business, it IS the business. Always happy to correct arguments here on WP that do not survive first contact with the authoritive real world facts!

beck daross with respect I cited FAA 61.113B and I know what it means, and the example can be correct, It can't be commercial carriage, and as you acknowledge the pilot can be paid while flying, the example I gave is valid if the business activities really are filming, counting zebras, engineering or adventuring all of which would be are unlikely to described as a flying or aviation business, these circumstances may or may not describe tracy curtis, but the point is she could earn money while flying. I would suggest you are just looking for any reason to justify changing her occupation from pilot, though I see it is now Aviator which seems appropriate given the aircraft she is associated with. Earning money is not a requirement for an occupation in any case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation194.73.113.130 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not speculating whether Curtis-Taylor's is surreptitiously earning an illegitimate living from her private certificate. It is a fact that some private pilots have been caught doing that. But the facts are she cannot legally do so, and her occupation cannot therefore be either pilot or adventurer (for there is no evidence that she has undertaken any expedition other than these flights from which she could earn a crust) Beck daross (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Martinevans123, you asked for a source for her occupation being a gemmologist. The source is already there - Curtis-Taylor in reference #4. So gemmologist it is. Beck daross (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Martinevans123, I was only suggesting it would be more accurate and less risky for her, being as apparently it is claimed on her behalf that she has earned from flying on just a basic Private Pilot's Licence instead of the required Commercial Pilot's Licence. And yes, Commercial Pilots can be paid in principle for any flying work. Carrying paying passengers requires even higher standards of both licencing and regulation (including tougher and more regular medicals etc), being aerial transport work. Aren't you pleased to hear you're so well protected by all these layers of safety, regulation and checking of pilot standards every time you fly as a passenger? We ATPL (Air Transport Pilot Licence) holders worked very hard and paid dearly to train to exercise the privileges of our licences, so we don't take kindly to any old Tom, Dick, Harry, Tracey or Walt who rocks up offering to fly you for cash in unregulated aircraft, without the full set of hard-earned qualifications to make it legal and safe. Look at the pictures of the wreckage after BOTH of those nasty accidents caused by this Private Pilot Licence holder, when possibly an ego got in the way of safety and commonsense. I genuinely hope that helps to clarify the position the ATPL holders are unanimously taking on this important issue. Your safety is our utmost concern.86.165.205.190 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

How is that relevant to flying vintage aircraft at airshows, instructing other pilots to do similar, or making long cross-continental flights (mostly solo, but sometimes with a passegner) retracing the famous flights of aviation pioneers? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I was answering your rhetorical question: "One can be a pilot, and be paid for flying, without carrying any passengers?". Regarding your further question, any airshows she displayed in (which I am aware of just one, but there might be more), would require her to hold Display Authorisation from the CAA. I am unaware of any references to her "instructing other pilots to do similar", for which she would also need not only the DA, but considerable experience of so doing herself, which by all accounts she simply does not have. She has now openly admitted that she only flew a tiny minority of the "long cross-continental flights" solo (4 out of 34 legs if I recall the actual numbers) so your source of information "mostly solo" is incorrect. As your question is about a number of false suppositions, I can't possibly answer you, and I am thus completely unclear what point you are making, unfortunately. Good luck in finding truthful answers, but be careful where you get them from.86.165.205.190 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Good luck?" I was expecting to find truthful answers on this Talk Page. And while it's great to know that "our safety is your utmost concern" I still fail to see why any of that is relevant to what Curtis-Taylor has done. I don't really think we can speculate on the size or effects of her ego. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The information in the infobox needs to be a summary of the information in the article. If someone wants to add "gemmologist" then they need to edit the article text to include details of this such as her training, employer, duration of employment etc etc. And a source. I've replaced it with "aviator" until "gemmologist" is established in this way. MurielMary (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

MurielMary. I don't agree but in any event, it's Aviatrix.Veritasaviator (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends somewhat if we think that's a sexist job title? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's what the BBC call her but they may not after the recent revelations. If anything, I think she is an expedition organiser. Veritasaviator (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreeing with me, Veritas - it's about following the relevant WP policy which states:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." MurielMary (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Beck daross, yes, hidden away in that April 2014 source, she says: "More recently, I qualified as a gemmologist, and set up my own jewellery business, but I always seem to get distracted by flying old aeroplanes." Assuming that she is telling the truth (you agree we can do that?), she apparently has a qualification, whatever that might be, as a "gemmologist". But what she doesn't say, is if that business succeeded or failed, or even if she was an employee in that business. The source for that entire interview is Light Aviation, published by the Light Aircraft Association headed "Meet the Members" i.e. members of the Light Aircraft Association. It's not Gemmology magazine, inviting us to meet members of the British Gemmology Association. My general point it this - that Curtis-Taylor has achieved notability for flying aircraft, not for studying gemstones. And in particular, in this article, there is no mention of gemmology. And rightly so, as there is certainly not enough evidence to support the claim that her sole occupation is "gemmologist". If this article exists here only on the basis that Curtis-Taylor is a 'notable gemmologist', then it certainly deserves my vote to Delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, how mixed up this is! For some clarity: I believe others started Ms Curtis Taylor's Wiki, whether to promote her - as she has proved she is more than capable of doing herself - or not. The Wiki grew to only promote the positive aspects of her flying, much as this appears to be the principle subject she was continually wanting to promote in the mainstream media, aided by her media experts. She frequently referenced her gender - as is her privilege - which was possibly why the Wiki contributors, MurielMary particularly, built on that theme of an apparently successful female pilot. I think it is clear from all the evidence, that the subject would be happy with almost any notability, but continually pushed the big story of a female making a heroic solo journey against all the odds. But then the story unravelled, which was a blow to both her and the Wiki editors who helped build a Wiki entry that matched the fragile image that had been portrayed, but was now looking shattered. Then a number of actual airline pilots, myself included, correctly pointed out that you shouldn't allow it to be claimed on your behalf that you made a career out of being a pilot unless you were actually qualified to have that said about you. So that leaves precious little that can be left in a Wiki about someone who started off as a pilot who wanted to be noteworthy for her aviating skills. As the only things she now appears to be noteworthy for is her two major crashes, being found out being economical with the truth about her 'solo' flights, and having a prestigious award taken away, what can be left in the Wiki? If she still wants notability, then as others have said, the crashes, the untrue solo claims and the removal of the award just about cover every aspect. If not, then I agree with Martinevans123 that mere 'gemmologist' looks rather tame for a woman who had such a powerful entry into Wiki world as a heroic, brave solo woman pilot, and now seems destined to either a positively explosive exit, or going out with barely a whimper after the facts came out. It is up to the expert Wiki editors how they try to craft the story, but by this late stage, there is very little saving of face that appears possible. Somebody should have tried to rein in that bold over-claiming a long time ago, but I guess some people just.... My only interest was to set the facts straight, and to stop the ridiculous nonsense being peddled on her behalf about her flying, career, licence privileges etc on Wiki. This unsavoury episode really has not done her or Wiki any favours, as neither appear trustworthy sources of information and facts at all. A shame so many got carried away on the feminist heroine pilot theme and set back the subject of females in aviation a very long way in the process.86.165.205.190 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarity on who started this article and why, kindly read my statement to this effect on the "article for deletion" debate page. In summary, it was created because Curtis-Taylor was a person in the news and met the WP biography and General Notability Guidelines policies. As the story has developed, the WP policies of neutrality, objectivity and no original research have been repeatedly used and explicitly referred to in order to maintain the article in line with WP's policies. Numerous people who claim to be pilots have stated that they want this article to be biased towards maligning and minimising Curtis-Taylor's character and achievements. WP is not the place for this to happen. Controversy reported in secondary sources as controversy can be included here but arguments and controversy cannot be created here. In addition, I must comment on your point that she has "set back females in aviation" as this is a remarkably sexist comment to make. Why is the behaviour of one woman used to reflect on all women? Are you also saying that Trump's behaviour for example "sets back men in politics"? I doubt it - a man's problems are his alone, but more often than not, a woman's problems are used to malign the entire sex. Offtopic rant over. MurielMary (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised by your accusation that I have been "remarkably sexist". I consider myself to be the equal of any man, whether in or out of the flightdeck, and I detest ALL sexism of any kind, whether from men or women. Sadly, the subject has played her gender card rather too often, and it was this that I was referring to. Us women shouldn't need to prove our worth against men; our merits should be considered on a flat playingfield, I'm sure you'll agree. As for her Company name and tag line "Bird in a Bi-Plane", again playing on her gender, as if it is highly important, yet in a most disrespectful way to women, this really grates on me, as it invites all kinds of sexism. I fully stand by my comment that she appears to have set back the subject of women in aviation by these constant crass references to her gender. Possibly you mistook me for a man? That would be unfortunate, as we girls should stick together, eh! Regards.86.165.205.190 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IP 86, I think you've made a very fair summary of this article above, although I personally wouldn't comment on why any article was created in the first place, unless I myself had created it. Most airline pilots, who have a indisputable claim to describing their occupation as "pilot" would never get a wiki article, of course. I genuinely think that Curtis-Taylor's notability has arisen from her being an "aviator", whether by fair means or foul, and that that's the best description for here, if her article stays. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes but notability is not an occupation. If she is notable as an aviator - and I think she is for the controversy she is causing alone (no pun intended) - then the infobox should state "Notability: Aviator", not "Occupation: Aviator" so when I've had a chance to edit her career section as MurielMary suggests to include her own references to the gemmology business I will also amend the infobox. Aviator is a regulated profession, wiki editors cannot with any credibility hold their personal definitions above what is unambiguously laid down in the regs and the credibility of wikipedia itself is the first casualty of such factually incorrect information. Beck daross (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? You're going to amend the infobox, just like that? If you're think of replacing "occupation =" with "notable works =", I'm not sure that's going to work. I knew that "pilot" is certainly a regulated occupation, but then so is "driver" (of a motor car) in most countries. You're telling us know that "aviator" is "a regulated profession"? Or simply that "pilot = aviator"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Tracy Curtis's 'inspiration' Amy Johnson has a stated occupation of aviator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Johnson will you change that too?194.73.113.130 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Amy Johnson was a bona fide professional pilot with the ATA at the time of her death so there is no comparison. If Tracey Curtis-Taylor obtains a commercial licence then her occupation may also be described as aviator. You are obfuscating and being obtuse about the licence requirements vis flying for compensation and your points have no merit. I am not going to amend the infobox "just like that". I am going to change it after I have amended the main text regarding Curtis-Taylor's career per the suggestion of MurielMary. Beck daross (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Beck daross you are trying justify 'Occupation Pilot/Aviator' meaning in the narrowest possible way, I have provided a wikipedia reference to what occupation means. A person who spends a significant period of time i.e. 'several years' largely focused on a particular activity can reasonably expect that to be described as either their occupation or one of there occupations. I have no wish to disparage Amy Johnson or other notable pilots/aviators, I am just pointing out by your logic they would not appear to be aviators either. Wikipedia also has definition of what an Aviator is as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_(aeronautics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.113.130 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

194.73.113.130, forgive me but I think the point of having definitons is to be precise! Once again you need to read the point you are responding to. As I wrote, there is no doubt about Johnson's occupation, so it's not a case of "by my logic" it is a case of fact. As for your link to the Wikipedia defintion of aviator, firstly wikipedia is not an authoritive source and that article is flagged for multiple issues. But it contradicts your point anyway by stating "If a professional career or professional-level skills are desired, a Commercial Pilot License (CPL) endorsement would also be required".

Now to indulge your opinion briefly and consider your definition of occupation as 'something she has spent several years doing':- as of the Goodwood accident in 2015 she had circa 1400 hrs total logged over "30 years"[her claim]. That's 46 hours a year. To put that in context the average car driver in the UK would do 6,500 hours behind the wheel over the same period; a housewife would almost certainly exceed 1400 hrs in a single year; a long haul pilot may fly that total in little more than a year. 1400 hours over 30 years is not much of an occupation. I spend way more than 46 hours a year skiing, or playing tennis, or in the bar all in my spare time and I know plenty of people who spend a lot more still - on top of full-time jobs. No way is 46 hours a year an occupation. If you want to give a sensible description of her occupation ask yourself what has she been doing for most of the rest of the 300,000 or so hours since she took up flying? But the key point is flying cannot be her job because that would be illegal. Beck daross (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Beck daross I think I made my point. occupation has been removed, you must be pleased148.252.128.76 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I intend to reinstate the info box Occupation: Aviator, as a pending edit, I would ask that an appropriate editor with a neutral view point take a view on whether a valid consensus has been achieved with regards to views expressed here and make some determination. Alternatively they might provide some input on what parameter might be used to describe the subject appropriately in the infobox. Just leaving it out, without providing some alternative means to describe the subject, simply invites people to provide their own summary which apparently is not acceptable94.117.54.135 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the issues surrounding Curtis-Taylor's occupation are far too complex to be simply summarised in the infobox. Under those circumstances, the guidance at MOS:INFOBOX and similar issues at other articles suggest that it is not a suitable item to include. You would better spend your time looking for good sources to flesh out the text of the article in order to explain what her present job is. --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the tone of the entry is now incorrect whatever her occupation is. A quick Google of 'Bird in a Biplane' or 'Tracey Curtis Taylor' will show hundreds of news reports, video and image results, 80-90%+ of which celebrate her 'solo' flights from Africa to the UK and from the UK to Australia. She is on record as having called them 'solo' herself then, after being exposed by a former team member because she was accepting awards for being solo, she changed her description to 'sole' pilot - not a term recognised in the aviation community. We now have her on record (from her own statement) as saying she actually only spent 10% of her time solo on her flights but when Ewald Gritsch was with her for another 70% of the time it was his job to 'look out for hazards, wires, cables, cell towers, temples. I was the one flying the plane.”' Any pilot and by that I also mean a 10 hour student, will tell you that 'looking out for hazards' while physically flying the aircraft is a basic part of the piloting role. Having someone else do it means you have a co-pilot. So, for at least 80% of the time (the final 10% by her own words being for guests) she was flying she wasn't solo OR sole. The bottom line is that an individual has raised millions in sponsorship to fly a reproduction aircraft with modern navigation and electronics and convinced media, film companies, aviation bodies and the general public that it was a solo flight effort, which they reported as such and then told them well after the event, that it wasn't. This isn't opinion, it's proven fact. That is the real story of this person so I suggest editors think of how to describe that occupation and how to write about it rather than whether she is a pilot or not.Veritasaviator (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm missing 10% of the proven facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

|Martinevans123| Well, just 10% isn't bad. Tell me which bit you're missing and I'll point you in the right direction - probably from the references on the Wikipedia page...Veritasaviator (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

|Martinevans123| If you mean the 10% instead of 20% for guests, I apologise - hazards of predictive text :)Veritasaviator (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

|Bilko2| I think something need to be said about "Solo" in the context of flying aircraft since it seems to be one of the central points in this discussion. When a pilot flies his "first solo" this is a milestone, see the Wikipedia article. It means he/she is capable of not only flying the aircraft but also coping with any unexpected happenings without an instructor to help. Piloting an aircraft alone is VERY different to having an experienced co-pilot who you can ask for advice at any time. In the case of Tracey's flights, in my opinion, there would have been little controversy in the aviation community if the "passengers" on her trips had been photographers/friends but the fact is on most of the flights she was accompanied by a very experienced co-pilot. Even if one believes them when they say that Tracey was the "sole pilot" (whatever that means) the fact that he was there and able to help when any tricky situations cropped up making the trip VERY different and much less significant to a "solo" one. This paragraph is an opinion so not strictly "Wikipedia" but I do not think many aviators would dispute it. I have been a pilot for 35+ years. Bill Hall (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

|Bilko2| Perhaps write an article on what solo means, why it is so significant and important in an aviation context, or enhance the existing First solo flight, then you can reference your article in this BLP appropriately.88.105.43.64 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

|Bilko2| What you write makes sense. However, I've had a number of contacts from aviation editors on Wikipedia and outside interested parties. Their view is further time on this article is of little use. The subject and sponsors are basically a 'busted flush'. While quite rightly, Wikipedia requires unbiased neutral writing with acceptable referencing, any search on 'bird in a biplane' or Tracey Curtis Taylor news in the 'real' world, returns first pages of media reports on 'lies', 'stripping' of awards and 'not solo'. The global aviation community are aware of what has happened as are the media now so it's unlikely that her journey in the USA will continue or any more films will be made because if it had been solo (as most people thought it was), obviously it would be of interest. Now, with six 'personal and unequivocal' statements on the bird-in-a-biplane website saying neither flights were solo, where's the continued interest in that? With the right amount cash, any pilot could take a modern navigational equipped aircraft on four-hour hops across the States with a co-pilot on board. As I suggested above, I think subsequent editors need to decide whether they want to write about how it all happened or just decide it isn't important enough and remove.Veritasaviator (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

To the anonymous account who wants to know what fields/parameters are available for the infobox: see Template:infobox person. Please do not edit war however if your contributions are reverted -- you will be blocked from editing if you edit war without discussion and consensus. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be difficulty in describing what the person 'does', or occupies a large amount of time with respect to why they are notable for. Occupation seems a an appropriate field, this created controversy, I added 'known for = Recreating pioneering flights', this was removed, I added Qualifications: Pilot, flight Instructor. I suggest that if it a requirement to use certain fields, then occupation is perfectly acceptable, an wikipedia own definition of 'occupation' should be used in this context. Regarding the edit warring, I asked the reverter to have the courtesy to explain on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.33.53 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarise concisely the key facts of the biography. Looking at the article, there's very little to summarise about how she earns her living. Perhaps she's independently wealthy; perhaps she lives off a partner, or won the lottery - who knows? What is abundantly clear is that the article tells us virtually nothing about what her occupation may be. It describes her activities and relates her accomplishments and difficulties, but it doesn't give us anything we can confidently and succinctly describe as an occupation. The very fact that the discussion above is so lengthy ought to make it obvious that we can't make a satisfactory summary in the space available in an infobox. Surely it is obvious that |occupation= just isn't suitable here? I can see a case could be made for something like |known for = long-distance solo flying, but given the controversies, perhaps that ought to be discussed here to see if consensus can be reached before boldly adding it to the infobox? Finally, I'm afraid that adding |qualifications = Pilot, flying instructor is a waste of time as the infobox doesn't recognise |qualifications=. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, "Surely it is obvious that |occupation= just isn't suitable here?" You seem to be suggesting an occupation has to be how one earns a living, what about other occupations that have no relationship to earning a living, e.g. student, housewife, scholar, volunteer, charity worker, counsellor, retired, full-time wikipedia editor etc. Why the obsession with money? Surely occupation is not how a person earns money, there are other terms for that, what do other think? 2.96.37.100 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, I have add a request to have qualification added to infobox field here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_person2.96.37.100 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Occupation field

There has been a lot of discussion, as a contributor I would like to add the parameter occupation with the value of Aviator to describe what the person's occupation is in the context of the article. I am inviting editors to contribute some guidance on what an occupation is in this context, or provide some alternative suggestion how to describe the subject 'aviation' activities from a neutral point of view. Leaving it blank should also require some also require consensus. I will change the Infobox to occupation aviator as pending edit.94.117.238.252 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If during an episode of Mastermind we heard "Name?...Tracey Curtis-Taylor; Occupation?...Aviator", I think it is safe to say the overwhelming majority of viewers would take that to mean the contestant actually flew for a living, and was not a lady of leisure who merely did aviation for a hobby. I think it is pretty self evident most people consider "occupation" to be either one's job (eg teacher), or the significant thing one does instead of a job (eg housewife, retired, unemployed). The total logged flying hours of Curtis-Taylor over 30 years is in the region of 1500. Less than one hour a week!! That is a hobby not an occupation. Listing her occupation as 'aviator' based on either time spent on task or professional status is unjustified, nor do I see a consensus to do so. Her resume insofar as it can be established from the sources that have interviewed her goes something like "bit of a mixed bag; photographer; diamond valuer; waitress; foreign office worker; gemmologist; behind the scenes airshow administrator". Beck daross (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But we didn't. Hours don't give the full picture, of course. This guy is described as an astronaut, but how many hours of his career did he spend in space? The best we can do is reflect what the article says. All the template description says is: "Occupation(s) as given in the lead." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin can be described as an Astronaut because he was actually employed full tiume by NASA in the role for many years. Likewise Amy Johnson was a full time employee of the ATA at the time of her death, plus of course she actually broke records. There is no comparison with Curtis-Taylor. She could sort of be described as an aviator at the top of her infobox but in the absence of a doing it for a living I don't think her low hours justify it. Beck daross (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I was making a point about hours, not about employment status. All the template description says is: "Occupation(s) as given in the lead." But of course, to appear in the lead, one would expect full support in the artcle body. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I know you were making a point about hours but with respect it is ridiculous to compare an astronaut's hours in space with a pilot's hours. For every hour in space an astronaut will spend an untold number engaged in full time training. In fact most of the astronaut pilots will log considerably more airplane stick time a year than Curtis-Taylor. Her expedition "engineer" has more than 10 times her total flying hours and he is 4 years her junior! Beck daross (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It has now come to my attention that according to Curtis-Taylor's own testimony to the FAA after she crashed her aircraft in Arizona, she stated that her occupation is NOT pilot. Maybe she lied, I don't know, but it is a legal statement by her regarding her "occupation". Therefore I will in due course be editing out her occupation as aviator which has reappeared yet which contradicts her own legal statement. Beck daross (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that testimony Beck daross? TIA. MurielMary (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Logged Stearman hours - not enough to cover her trips

In her testimony to the AAIB at the time of her Goodwood accident, Curtis-Taylor claimed "at least" 350 hrs on the Stearman. By the time of her Winslow accident the total claimed was 450. So, 100 more. On her website she claims the Australia trip was variously 14,600 miles or 13,000 miles. Then there is the US trip as far as the accident plus anything between the two expeditions. The Australia trip alone is a lot more than the Stearman could do in 100 hrs. It is unknown if she did not actually fly the entire route claimed or she has simply logged incorrect hours. However it does show that editors need to consider she is not a very reliable source when citing references that can be traced to her, and not give undue weight to her claims without independant verification. Beck daross (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your trying to say here, but 'original research' does not belong in wikipedia. Also making suggestions that a person has broken rules that invite sanction might be considered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.43.64 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the discussion page where we discuss things like how reliable sources are - including the subject. I think the point I made was pretty clear, Curtis-Taylor is not a reliable source because the Stearman hours that she has declared in her testimony to accident investigators, which she has signed off as a true and accurate record, are way short of those needed to fly the expeditions. Do you have anything to say to editors here that would help clear up that discrepency? Beck daross (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Truth

I don't know how Wikipedia works but what I have written below is the truth. Take it or leave it as you wish...

Tracey Curtis-Taylor formed an idea to recreate a flight from Cape Town, South Africa to Goodwood, UK mirroring that of Lady Mary Heath’s. To raise funding for the trip she gained major sponsorship from Boeing Aircraft in the USA and Artemis Fund Managers in the UK. From the beginning, this was to be a solo flight as stated in numerous archived articles on Curtis-Taylor’s website (birdinabiplane.com), her sponsors press releases and the general media. To assist in this flight, her company hired the services of Sam Rutherford, an expert in sport and activity logistics for expeditions and part of the prepare2go group. At some point in the preparations, the team realised that the flight could not be performed solo. The flight took place between November 2013 and February 2014. A considerable amount of media coverage occurred and Ms Curtis-Taylor commenced a round of press, TV, radio and speaking engagements. At the same time, her company started planning another trip from the UK to Australia to take place from October 2015 to January 2016. This trip also started to be mentioned during the various engagements. With very few exceptions, the interviews and media coverage referred to her ‘solo’ Cape Town flight and the upcoming ‘solo’ Australian flight. During this time, Curtis-Taylor’s website continued to refer to the original flight as solo and Curtis-Taylor openly referred to it as ‘solo’ during her speaking engagements of which an example appears in the Wikipedia article. Rutherford had become aware of this coverage but out of professional courtesy, he decided that any denial of the status of the flights should come from Curtis-Taylor. However, he felt his hand was being forced when Curtis-Taylor started to receive awards for flying solo which he felt was simply unfair. He therefore wrote to Curtis-Taylor stating his concerns and asking her to take action. He heard nothing more and as awards and press coverage were increasing, he wrote again and stated he would have to make his feelings known publically unless she did so first. The only obvious reaction can be seen on archived web pages from Curtis-Taylor’s website at the time using the waybackmachine.org website. All previous references to her flying solo were removed. Rutherford then started to explain his position on aviation forums. These communications are all archived on Flyer Forum and Pprune. None state anything other than Curtis-Taylor was not flying solo and her co-pilot was Ewald Gritsch, the owner of the company which build her Stearman. Strangely, throughout the controversy, on TV reports and the documentary, Gritsch can be seen in the front cockpit of the aircraft yet this fact was never raised by observers at the time. As Rutherford’s accusations became more public, Curtis-Taylor made the first of four statements on her website, the essence of which was that she had never stated she flew ‘solo’ but that she was the ‘sole’ pilot. This caused a furore in the aviation world because there is no such definition of ‘sole’ pilot and the majority of people who had followed the story from the beginning had believed the flight to be solo. When they revisited archived material, the general view was that there had been a determined effort to deceive. Presently, there are a number of statements on the Curtis-Taylor site. The current situation is that Curtis-Taylor states she did not fly solo for at least 90% of the time she was in the aircraft. She further states that 80% of the time, she flew with Ewald Gritsch. She maintains, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, that this has been her position from the outset. In Ewald Gritsch’s statement, he agrees he was in the front-cockpit but states the aircraft is flown from the rear. This is incorrect. The aircraft is a trainer and since its launch in the 1940’s, it has always been possible to fly the aircraft from either cockpit. Curtis-Taylor suggests that the accusations against her are ‘anti-feminist’ and untrue. She further suggests that ‘she could have done more to correct misleading reports that made liberal use of the phrase “flying solo”.’ The obvious question is why didn’t she do this with the hundreds (literally) of articles from her sponsors, the press, TV media and her own website? I am not Sam Rutherford, I neither know him or have met him. I have no link to anyone involved in this issue. I am however, a pilot who has flown his first solo, first solo cross country, first solo night flight, first solo instrument flight and many first solo’s on complex types. Like other pilots, while I don’t wear the achievements on my sleeve, they mean a lot to me and I am intensely irritated that someone should attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and be rewarded for it. As Rutherford has always stated, it’s just not fair. I now leave others to decide if the Wikipedia page on Tracey Curtis-Taylor is accurate.Veritasaviator (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid most of this is original research and not allowed on wikipedia if you are not directly involved then none of what you say can be supported other than your own opinons. Wikipedia works on reliable sources (which do not include blogs and forums) not opinion or hearsay (refer Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth), thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

MilbourneOne Fully understand your comment but of course, while it is my opinion, it is also supported by references. The facts I state are very simply provable by looking at those references. The question is, do Wikipedia editors wish to continue to have the site reflect Curtis-Taylor as shown now or comment on the deceit. Ignoring the truth because of 'rules' is still just ignoring the truth.Veritasaviator (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide sources for all your claims, not expect others to go and search for themselves, especially if you are hoping to change the content of the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"""OK. Here's two. The first one from Curtis-Taylor's website in February 2015. Her site, her responsibility and the second, a clip from one of her speaker engagements where the words are directly from her: Veritasaviator (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

"""Martinevans123..two sources, both from Curtis-Taylor, stating that Cape Town to UK was a solo flight. Now read latest statements from Curtis-Taylor on www.birdinabiplane.com where she states they were not solo and advise me what more I need to do. Many thanksVeritasaviator (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Veritsaviator this page is for improving the article not for directing research (which we dont do), you need to tell us whats wrong in the article and then make a case with reliable references why something should be change/deleted/added. Wikipedia relies on what other sources say about things we dont synthesis the sources ourselves. Also youtube is not reliable, you need to find secondary sources to support interpretations of speeches. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh and please dont use upper case it is considered to be shouting and bad manners, we are just trying to explain how wikipedia works so you can make a case, we are trying to help you here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

""MilbourneOne..I apologise for the block wording (not capitals) it is not my intention to 'shout' or be offensive. I am not a Wikipedia expert. Quite frankly, to refuse to accept a first person speech on Youtube in this instance is questionable and one can only assume you have some ulterior motive? The references stand to any reasonable persons scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritasaviator (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That is called a personal attack on wikipedia (read WP:NPA) and can get you blocked from editing, perhaps consider withdrawing your remarks. The article has been modified in the last few hours that cover a lot of your comments, have a read and come back and tell us clearly what needs to be changed and we can help make the article balanced per the sources and with due weight to the issues, but consider how you treat others, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are offended MilbourneOne..that is not my intention. My comments in my first statement stand and I have nothing further to add. If an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect the truth then what I have written and the quoted references will do so if incorporated. If a video of Curtis-Taylor speaking the words '..my solo flight from Cape Town..' is not good enough then I'm not sure what further proof will be acceptable. I have made my point for which I thank those who have read it and now I will move on.Veritasaviator (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC) OUT

My name is Sam Rutherford. I was there throughout, and everything posted by Veritasaviator is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.75.202 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC) My name is Peter Gibson. I am very aware of Sam Rutherford's reputation in the flying community and I support him 100% on his comment above. I would also say that the videos referred to show Tracey Curtis Taylor clearly claiming (on two occasions) to have flown solo. It is a disgrace that this is not mentioned on her Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.18.205.58 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Avoid misuse of primary sources

There are statements that cite primary sources, a youtube video and now an internet archive of the 'bird in biplane' website, these may contravene the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy and WP:NPOV. Originally I intended to delete them, but I moved and summarised them to the paragraph concerning the Bill Woodhams Trophy which cites 'reliable secondary sources'. However are such primary sources appropriate when they are not augmenting 'reliable secondary sources' but indeed providing alternative conclusions, i.e. WP:NOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.61.30 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

In an attempt at a better explanation... This link contains the Bill Woodhams paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tracey_Curtis-Taylor&oldid=748271936#Cape_Town_to_Goodwood_flight.2C_2013 the content 'In a 2014 speech celebrating Amy Johnson, Curtis-Taylor called her own journey a "solo flight"[20] and until February 2015, the 'bird in a biplane' website promoting Tracey Curtis Taylor described it as a 'solo open-cockpit biplane flight'.[21]' on it's own should be deleted as it contravenes the following policies WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NPOV the only justification I can see against these policies is if they support citations from secondary sources. Though I believe it should be augmenting them, not providing an alternative conclusions. For the time being I have edited the entire paragraph in an attempt provide a WP:NPOV. But is this article an appropriate place for 'he said, she said' discussion which is based purely on primary source? 78.147.61.30 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Really need a reliable secondary source that says that despite what x said about y evidence is z, it is not up to us to make that conclusion. The Bird in a Plane website can be used to say "the website said x" but little more. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I intend to edit and remove content that refers to the subject in a negative way or suggests negative conclusions, that relies on a citation from a primary source and is not 'augmenting' other secondary sources but in fact contradicts them. e.g. youtube clip and bird in biplane website. This is I understand the correct wiki policy i.e. WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NPOV. 37.252.28.110 (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Kindly start a new section on this talk page and copy/paste the statements you intend to edit/remove. That would enable discussion to occur rather than edit-warring (editors continually editing and reverting each others' edits and re-editing without actual discussion). TIA MurielMary (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

US Transcontinental Flight, 2016-17 - cause of crash

The report currently provided as a source for the cause of the crash here, says this (emphasis added):

"Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine run did not reveal any evidence of any preexisting anomalies that would have precluded normal operation; therefore, the reason for the partial loss of engine power could not be determined."

Are we missing something here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The text in the article is incorrect. The grey/tan liquid was simply avgas. There is no evidence of any fuel contamination. Further, the owner of the airfield has stated that the camera aircraft accompanying the Stearman was filled with the same fuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.59.253 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That source says this:

"The carburetor was intact, and all linkages were secure. The carburetor fuel screen was removed, and a gray / tan liquid was drained from the carburetor. The fuel screen was free of debris. The liquid smelled similar to 100 Low Lead fuel, and tested negative for water using water finding paste. The air filter was removed, and a red dirt substance was observed within the housing, however, the air filter element appeared to be mostly free of debris. The gascolator screen and bowl was free of debris."

Is there any reason the NTSB did not simply say "it was avgas"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably because the more technical term as used in the US is 100 low lead or, '100 l-l'. Whatever, it's the most common type of fuel used in aircraft. The report goes on to say that the gascolator and bowl were free of debris. That is pretty much saying 'there was no fuel contamination in that aircraft.' Had there been the slightest suspicion on the day, all aircraft that had used the same pump would have been warned.Nothing of that order took place. The main article is incorrect.80.12.59.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would add that if fuel contamination was not the cause of partial loss of power and in the absence of any other finding from NTSB, all that is left is carburetor icing.80.12.59.81 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many possibilities that could be considered. Even assuming that there was an actual loss of power rather than being the reporter's perception, the throttle could have partly closed by accident or error, plugs could have fouled etc etc. What is the point of speculation by editors? What seems to be truly sourced was that there was a crash rather than a safely executed forced landing.SovalValtos (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The main article is incorrect" It says "The NTSB investigation reported that "a gray / tan liquid was drained from the carburetor". That's a direct quote, from the NTSB report given in support? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans -Yes but because it is taken in isolation, the quote infers (presumably to make a point) there was something wrong with it being a 'gray/tan liquid' - it's just a truism.

Ok, so why did the NTSB not just say "'100 l-l'"? Are they not really not able to easily decide if a liquid is avgas or not? I tend to agree with you, though, that that single sentence may need to be removed because of WP:WEIGHT - it's currently a bit misleading and is possibly a complete re herring. I'm not sure it's a "truism" as such; it seems to be just a fact, phrased in that odd way because NTSB can't, or won't, make a 100% clear identification of the fuel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they did - they said it smelt similar to 100 low lead. When I wrote 'truism' I meant it's just a random statement taken from a lot of NTSB text. The essence of the NTSB report is that the aircraft did not crash because of contaminated fuel which, to be fair, was the reason the pilot stated. Being no evidence for the statement it either has to be included and rebutted with the report ie 'The pilot stated the power loss was caused by fuel contamination. Neither the NTSB or the supplier of the fuel could find evidence to support that statement'...or it's just not included at all. The problem with that is it would be the second such incident omitted. For 'amateur' private pilots, that's probably OK but for a public person such omissions are not normal. However, my original aim was not to suggest edits to the article, just to point out that the statement about the 'gray/tan liquid' in the report was much like calling a glass of apple juice 'a clear brown liquid substance that smelt of apple juice'.92.184.108.187 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To me that sounds like a very fair appraisal. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

SolValtos - They could indeed be reasons and that's why the NTSB do the checks. Having done that, none of the situations you suggest were found to have occurred.80.12.59.81 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Still referring to the crash, the article refers to a 'co-pilot' in the cockpit of the Stearman. This type of light aircraft does not have a co-pilot. A co-pilot is only needed on aircraft where a second pilot is specified as a requirement to operate the aircraft normally - in other words, the aircraft may not be flown without two pilots onboard. Another person in the subject aircraft is either, another pilot (to share flying duties such as navigation or flying), a passenger or an instructor. In this case, I believe the other person was the same instructor/pilot who flew with the pilot on other legs of the journey.90.60.210.131 (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There is still something in the article which is confusing. On the current BiaB (Bird in a Biplane) webpage, the pilot states, 'The engine suffered a partial power loss, most likely caused by contaminated fuel, which was sufficient to stop it flying at the high density altitude of 7000ft. ref: http://www.birdinabiplane.com/usa2017/

However, the NTSB are very clear on this: NTSB Probable Cause approval paper. Conclusion: 'The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The partial loss of engine power during takeoff initial climb in high-density altitude conditions for reasons that could not be determined because a postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no anomalies.'

This really should be clarified in the article because, if nothing else, it opens the pilot up to critisism.90.60.210.131 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

But that pilot statement does not currently appear "in the article" at all? And I'm not sure that it's a good idea to add anything "because, if nothing else, it opens the pilot up to criticism." The aim of the article is to present facts supported by sources, not necessarily to criticise anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

OK...in that case the two references above are sources (presumably impeccable), one being from the pilot and the other from the NTSB. Unfortunately, at the moment the article leaves a question as to what happened by inferring that the 'gray/tan liquid' is some sort of reason for the crash.90.60.210.131 (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

http://www.birdinabiplane.com/usa2017/ is far from "impreccable". WP:SPS are usually to be avoided. As I suggested before, I tend to agree about any mention of the "gray/tan liquid". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree about WP:SPS but I would suggest this is WP:SELFPUB as it is a website about the person in question90.60.210.131 (talk)

References

Some considerable time has passed since the above. Can I suggest some wiki editors look again at the evidence that Tracey Curtis Taylor was not a notable aviator,held no commercial pilots licences outside New Zealand and conducted all of her flights with a 21,000 hour commercial pilot and instructor who also built and restored the Spirit of Artemis.None of these were solo or notable apart from publicity for the sponsors.None of these flights were permitted under international flight law as commercial operations as both were excercising the rights of reacreational private aviation.This does not allow for hire and reward.